Exploiting the AI

[gozpel]

I can understand the saying, if the game is fair.

But no, in my opinion, should you declare on an already weak AI, the turn after you hogged all his gold for your resources.

On Deity I can understand the need for it, but it's still using the AI for your convenience.

On King and Emperor, I don't sell one-way open borders, those 50 gold have to be found somewhere else.

So many masters of this game proclaim great winnings, by just "tricking" the AI.

Not so impressive to me.

 

[Dirk_Diggler]

It's because the game isn't fair on higher difficulties.

The AI doesn't get smarter on higher levels, it just gets bigger bonuses. Therefore using our intelligence to trick the AI out of that unfair production and bonuses is fair, and to a point, impressive.

 

[Tabarnak]

It would be easy for devs to pre-determine deals. After selling stuff, a timer can show how much turns are left before making a new deal. Simple as that. They didn't, so i guess it's part of mechanics.

To beat deity you must exploit the AI. If you don't, that's because you are pretty isolated and you stay peaceful until the end.

But seriously, selling a single lux for is already cheesy itself. No humans would accept that. That's why like playing multiplayer. You can't cheat the human and he doesn't cheat you with massive bonuses.

 

[snarzberry]

We all have our own barometer for this stuff. Personally I don't sell and declare because I think the large influxes of gold in the mid game make things a little too easy with all the rush bought units. I still manage to win often on deity peacefully or aggressively, but lose many games also which is how I like it.

It's not essential to 'cheat' to beat deity, but I suppose that all depends on your subjective opinion on what constitutes fair play. If you consider selling resources at all to be cheating then yeah probably it is impossible.

There's a spectrum of possible plays that run the length from apparently universally condemned such as building Oxford University over and over again to the plays that create division like trade and declare, or even sell open borders. I have my own opinions on all of those and I'm sure you have yours.

At the end of the day it matters little as we're playing the game principally for our own enjoyment. The unfortunate part is when people think others are showing off by posting games where they beat a high level and use a tactic that they personally think should be disallowed. Then they have a go at them for being 'cheap'. Problem being there is no consensus on these issues, no model to follow.

Lets just be done with this tiresome crap and have an epic poll with every questionable or controversial tactic listed and a long round of voting to create a civfanatics canon on allowable play and then we all stick to it or s t f u.

 

[JeanBaptiste]

I don't understand why selling lux for is considered a "cheat". You carefully select your city placements (and wars) so you can get a hold of new resources for trade. I think it's totally fair (and historically accurate) that the AI then buys them.

Agree with the others though that selling before a DOW is cheesy. There should be some kind of severe punishment or alternatively impossible for a number of turns for the seller to do so...

 

[JeanBaptiste]

Lets just be done with this tiresome crap and have an epic poll with every questionable or controversial tactic listed and a long round of voting to create a civfanatics canon on allowable play and then we all stick to it or s t f u.

Totally agree with this.

 

[Txurce]

I don't understand why selling lux for is considered a "cheat". You carefully select your city placements (and wars) so you can get a hold of new resources for trade. I think it's totally fair (and historically accurate) that the AI then buys them.

It's not totally fair and historically accurate, because the AI never even asks if you want to buy its luxuries. However, I agree it's not a cheat, in that the game was clearly designed to function as it does. One-sided trading gives the human the gold needed to compete with an AI that has other advantages. It's a rough, asymmetrical balancing act that creates interactivity while protecting the AI's limitations. With a hypothetical peer AI, you'd have the equivalent of MP, no more AI bonuses, and consequently a more historically accurate trading system.

 

[qec]

I don't understand why selling lux for is considered a "cheat". You carefully select your city placements (and wars) so you can get a hold of new resources for trade. I think it's totally fair (and historically accurate) that the AI then buys them.

Agree with the others though that selling before a DOW is cheesy. There should be some kind of severe punishment or alternatively impossible for a number of turns for the seller to do so...

I agree with this completely. Because if the A.I doesn't have a Lux Resource to trade back then you might as well get something for your surplus of resources. Also this keeps them from mooching the resources for nothing after a DoF.

Also agree that selling before a DoW is cheap, but I still use that tact. almost constantly, as long as I remember to. The reason I use it is to try and block the A.I from purchasing defensive buildings that would make besieging harder. I still feel a little dirty about it occasionally, but my theory is if they've had hundreds of turns to build defensive buildings and I've already taken several cities or capitals, then they should have already built defensive buildings, not saved up cash to buy them in times of war. Babylon builds walls no matter what though.

 

[JeanBaptiste]

It's not totally fair and historically accurate, because the AI never even asks if you want to buy its luxuries.

What I meant was that many great civilizations emerged through trade (and other things of course) and that then to play a game like Civ without trading would be strange. I agree with you though that it's bad that the AI never asks for anything. The trading mechanisms should be a lot more refined and the super extra happiness that the AI gets should be reduced significantly so that a lux trade would mean something.

 

[Tabarnak]

Against human it's not rare to see lux for lux trades and some ressource selling to help someone fighting another guy that may be too powerful if he destroys his ennemy.

The problem is the AI can't see if a trade is fair, dangerous or not. That's why he deserves huge bonuses. It's to the human player to get an advantage from this great source of income by overselling stuff to protect himself against deity AIs and other big threats.

My guess is that the game may be more balanced if the AI receivesless bonuses but the human also cannot massively sell everything to everyone. Less bonuses, and more fair trades to balance everything. CS alliances should be cheaper too.

 

[gozpel]

Problem being there is no consensus on these issues, no model to follow.

or s t f u.

I understand what you're saying and you're right, there a no "laws" in how we're going to play the game.

But what made me post this thread, is that of what I saw on youtube and Let's Play.

This particular player is obviously very good and run the AI like cattle.

So he created an all-view "model to follow", which I disagree with, because hundreds, maybe thousands of new players will watch these Let's Plays, and there they sit:

Ahh, cool, that is how I beat the game!

Not Quite Right!

Now I s t f u.

 

[Gort]

It's because the game isn't fair on higher difficulties.

The AI doesn't get smarter on higher levels, it just gets bigger bonuses. Therefore using our intelligence to trick the AI out of that unfair production and bonuses is fair, and to a point, impressive.

It's not really that "impressive" of a "trick" to look on a forum, see an exploit, and use it.

The problem is that the AI doesn't play the same game we do. They get tons of extra money and happiness which it doesn't make use of, so selling them luxuries is an absolute no-brainer.

 

[Silverfuturist]

I would consider an "exploit" (using the term loosely) as something you can do against the AI that you can't do against a human. That being said, I don't fault anybody for using these "exploits." In fact, war between the AI is an "exploit" because the AI suicides its units vs you... and the way it goes overboard to give you all of its cities, gold and resources for peace is something a human would not do. When a human is losing they will give all their stuff to your enemy and not you! They get mad at you for killing their units, stealing their workers, taking their cities, etc.


Fantasy section of the post:
I think that there should be a reward for trade between friendly civs that goes beyond simple bartering of luxuries... you get gold from trade routes between cities in your civ, so why not gold from trade routes between allied city states... or evern friendly civs. When you buy a tile or a building or a unit, your gold goes to some mysterious 3rd party... so why not be able to sell your surplus resources to the same mysterious 3rd party ("the marketplace.")

 

[moredrowsy]

I don't think it's a cheat. It's pretty CHEAP to do it but definitely NOT CHEATING. Heck, the stupid AI cheats ridiculously more.

 

[gozpel]

I don't think it's a cheat. It's pretty CHEAP to do it but definitely NOT CHEATING. Heck, the stupid AI cheats ridiculously more.

I might as well starting to sell one-sided OB deals too and get on with my games, as this gives you a faster win in most of the higher level games. And use the oldoldoldoldold exploit of declaring on the AI after selling your resources, like in Civ3 where I was a pretty good player.

But during Civ4 I felt it was wrong and never achieved anything great, as on CIV5.

Maybe until now, since there a few defenders of this, I will try it and then I'll make a Let's Play where you can watch my stomach turn, when I barf at the screen.

Hell, a win is a win, right?